This is Bloomberg Law.
What does a prosecutor have to prove in order to get a rico conviction? Tell us why the Solicitor General is sometimes referred to as the tenth Justice.
Interviews with prominent attorneys in Bloomberg Legal Experts.
That's Jennifer k for Bloomberg Law. Joining me is former federal prosecutor Robert miss.
And analysis of important legal issues, cases and headlines.
It's the toughest hurdle for prosecutors proving Trump's intent. Alito took on Congress, saying Congress has no power to regulate the Supreme Court.
Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
Welcome to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. Ahead in this hour, we'll take a closer look at a case that could help determine which party controls the House after next year's election. Plus FTX investors are suing celebrities, bankers, accountants, and lawyers.
We have said that the burden that you're assuming of disentangling race and politics in a situation like this is very, very difficult.
The Chief Justice aptly described the problem in the case before the Supreme Court. The limits of parties in jerrymandering when it intersects with race. It's a case that could help determine which party controls the House after next year's election. A panel of three federal judges, after an eight day trial, concluded that Republican lawmakers had engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering in drawing South Carolina's first congressional district, but at oral arguments.
The conservative justice has expressed skepticism about that panel's decision. Here's Chief Justice John Roberts.
We've never had a case where there's been no direct evidence, no map, no strangely configured districts, a very large amount of political evidence, whether the district court chose to credit it or not.
While the three liberal justices suggested the lower court had adequate evidence to conclude that South Carolina lawmakers improperly relied on race to get to its established target of seventeen percent black voters in the district by shifting thirty thousand black voters out of the district to hit that goal. Here's Justice Elena Kagan.
You have two experts here, Reguso and Lou who answered the exact question that is supposed to be answered in such a case. In other words, is this gerrymander based on politics or is it a way to get to an ultimate goal? An ultimate political goal, but the gerrymandarin is based on race. And what the two of them do is that they show that black Democrats are excluded from District one at a far greater percentage than white Democrats are joining.
Me is elections law expert Richard Breffald, a professor at Columbia Law School. So Rich tell us about the case and the main issue here.
So this case is about a challenge to the redistricting of South Carolina's congressional plan in twenty twenty two following the twenty twenty census. The major development affected District one, which is basically around Charleston, and it made the district more Republican by moving out of a significant number of
black voters into an adjacent black majority district. District one had been a Republican district, but in recent years had been more closely contested, and in twenty eighteen the Democrats actually won it for one term. Twenty twenty, the Republicans want it back with very narrowly. So one of the things the legislature did in twenty twenty two was changed the composition to make it more republican, and in so doing it basically moved about thirty thousand black voters from
Charleston out of the district into an adjacent district. By the way, District one is the district that elects Nancy Mace, who had been previously considered a moderate that since her district was change, seems to become more conservative. She's one of the eight who voted to pose Kevin McCarthy. So the question before the court, it's a tough question, is whether the legislature was motivated by race or by party. You might say that in a state where race and
party are so intertwined, that's an impossible question answers. It's the same thing, but it's crucial because the Supreme Court has said that racial gerrymandering, that is to say, the intentional movement of voters because of their race from one district to another is unconstitutional. But partisan jerrymandering, as we all know since the RUCO decision in twenty nineteen, is non justiciable. So it's okay for the state to engage in partisan gerrymandering. It's not okay for the state to
engage in racial gerrymandering. South Carolina says it was both the following traditional district lines but also had a partisan
political purpose. What the lower court found was that actually the movement of voters did exhibit racial predominance, that given away the voters, reve which voters were targeted, and relying on the testimony of experts, they basically said that a proportionate number of black Democrats relative to white Democrats were the ones who were moved, and therefore the District Court was able to conclude that this was a racial gerrymander. That's what's being tested in the Supreme Court right now,
whether this is a racial or a partisan jerrymander. Did the district court do it right? To what extent is the Supreme Court required to defer to the findings of the district court. And the district Court's findings are really sort of factual. They basically made a determination, based on the testimony of a person who wrote the South Carolina Plan and of other experts, that this was racially motivated. So one of the big issues before the court is
what difference the district court finding was supposed to get. Normally, the standard applies to something called clearly erroneous, which means
the district court gets a lot of difference. But you saw some of the more conservative justices pushing back on that here, saying that given the fact that the district Court doesn't appear to have given trusted in the good faith of the legislature, and given some of the other challenges to the evidence in front of the district court, maybe the district court doesn't get the kind of difference that the clearly erroneous standard normally would give them.
Okay, so let's take those that's a lot of issues one by one. So the three judge federal panel referred to the revised map as effective bleaching of African American voters out of the Charleston County portion of the district. And they came to that conclusion after an extensive eight day trial featuring forty two witnesses and six hundred and fifty two exhibits. So doesn't the court usually defer to the factual findings of lower court judges?
Yes, I mean, indeed, that is the standard they're supposed to apply, what's called the clearly erroneous standard. Not just but the district court right on balance, But as long as the District Court did was plausible long as they didn't something which was clearly wrong, as opposed to debatably wrong. They're supposed to defer. And you definitely heard the liberal justices emphasizing the importance of adhering to the clearly erroneous standard that it was evidence to support with the District
Court found. And indeed the United States came in. The United States had not been a party to the case originally, but this listener General's Office came in. If the United States had actually emphasized the importance of following the clearly erroneous standard.
Chief Justice John Roberts said that the challengers of the map had no direct evidence that race had predominated in the decision making process, just circumstantial evidence. This would be breaking new ground in our voting rights jurisprudence. Is that true? I mean, isn't circumstantial evidence enough?
Right? They've often found circumstance relied on circumstantial evidence. But his full statement was there was no direct evidence. He all said it was not an oddly shaped district, and the number of the early other cases in which the Court has found racial gerrymandering, the district was oddly shaped On this one, there was a big change the district. People were moved around a lot, but the district itself didn't flunk any kind of test of odd shape, which
is somethings the Court has sometimes used. And the other issue that came up before the court was the fact that the plaintiffs had not presented an alternative map. Basically, the question was could the state have gotten its partisan goals without moving as many black voters around? And the question came up, should the plaintiffs have been required to present an alternative map showing that the state could have made the district just as Republican without moving as many
black voters. And there was a debate in the court as to whether the plaintiffs had to do that, and the President is that they don't have to. Indeed, Justice Kagan was quite strong on that because she'd actually written the case that said that, a case called Cooper about
five years ago. But nonetheless, the other justices sort of came back and said, well, maybe you didn't have to, but why didn't you Why wouldn't that have helped your case if you could have shown that they could obtain their partisan goals without using race quite as much I mean it really went into the question, this difficulty of separating out race and party. In effect, the conservative justices were sort of creating it. Even though the prior case,
Cooper had said there's no such requirement. You saw some of them basically kind of suggested that either that there is, or that there should be, or that it's a problem when there isn't.
Justice Kagan argued that the map makers wouldn't just have relied on the twenty twenty election results. She said this to the lawyer arguing for South Carolina. Your defense was, we didn't look at the racial data for this purpose. And what the lower court said was, I don't believe that. And she also said they had not only the opportunity it was sitting there on their computers, but the clear
incentive to be looking at this race data. So explain what she was getting at there and did you find it persuasive?
So the couple questions here are one is why would they Why would the state bother using race when they could just use party? And if their goal was to make the district more Republican, why not just use the party voting? Why use race as approxy when you actually have the party data? One response to that is, actually they had much more information on race than on party. They only had because of the way in which kind
of votes were counted in South Carolina. They only had one election in which they had good party data, and that was the twenty twenty presidential election, and the least the argument was that wasn't a good predictor because there had been more kind of a white crossover voting for
Biden over Trump in that election. So the plaintiffs argued, Justice Kagan suggest that she agreed that in this case, actually the state used the race data because race data was more reliable that a predicted value than the more limited party data. Her point was that it was on their computers, it was in their data, it was in their face, and they couldn't have been unaware of it.
And indeed, at one point in the trial, the lead witness for South Carolina and the principal map maker basically said, well, we weren't doing this race, but yes, of course we were aware of the racial data. And this is where the lower court basically concluded they really didn't believe him on that.
Coming up next, we'll take a look at how the court might rule. This is Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
You're listening to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I've been talking to Columbia Law School professor Richard Rfalt about Supreme Court arguments over whether it will reinstate a Republican drawn congressional map in South Carolina after a lower court concluded that Republican lawmakers engaged in unconstitutional racial gerrymandering in drawing what is now a Republican health district. Justice Samuel Alito was the most aggressive questioner
of the validity of the lower court's decision. He posed nearly forty questions to the NAACP's attorney. What was the thrust of his questions or problems?
I think he basically said that this is politics and that the burden was heavy on the plaintiffs to show that it wasn't politics and that it was race. Much of this went into some of the details about what some of the experts testified to, or their failure to address every point that the state raised. Some of the experts testified to whether or not the district complied with traditional districting criteria, but not whether or not it was part of an Others focused on whether it was partisan
or racial, but not in the district criteria. So he felt that the expert testimony was inadequate to support the trial court's finding. He repeatedly raised the question about the alternative map, even as he acknowledged that an alternative map was not required. He sort of found that the absence
of an alternative map undermined the plaintiff's case. And again he basically said that in some sense suggests that there was a heavier burden on the District Court to prove that it was race and not party, given the way that the two were so tightly intertwined.
Justice Katanji Brown Jackson kept stressing that the court relies on the factual findings of lower courts, and she said it would be a dramatic shift to precedent if they overturned the trial court's findings. Is that true or if they find clear error, which Justice Clarence Thomas brought up right at the beginning, would it not be violentive of precedent?
Well, if they found clear error, it wouldn't be because the standard is clearly ironing. Is the District Court's findings are not immune from review, but it has to be clear error as opposed to whether or not it was debatable in some sense. The US government, as I said, they came in on the side of the plaintiffs, on the side of the NAACP, and said, in a fact, we think that the three judge court could have gone
either way. There was evidence to support either position, but the position that the district first found was reasonable given the evidence they had, and so that's why it's you should defer to them. I mean, one question that Justice Barrett raised to just maybe whether the standard should be higher in a case involving a state legislature. Maybe there should be more burden on the district court to show
that the legislature wasn't acting in good faith. There's a kind of presumption that legislators state legislatures act in good faith, so maybe there should be a higher legal burden on
the district court. And you're right. Justice Jackson was very heavy on it, sort of sticking to the traditional role of the district court in finding the facts and the duty of appellate courts that the first you had been at district court, judge, it was kind of a civil procedure argument as much as anything else, that the traditional role of the court is to see whether the lower court applied the law properly, but to defer to the
factual finding. The liberals were the strongest on this about the importance of following this traditional judicial role of deferring to lower courts on the factual findings.
Most legal commentators concluded after hearing the arguments, that the conservative majority is going to uphold the Republican drawn mapp Do you agree with that?
There were certainly a lot of negative questioning, even from some of the so called more moderate conservative justices. Remember the most recent case involving race and voting, Allen versus Milligan went off five to four, with two of the conservatives, Roberts and Kavanaugh joining the liberals. Roberts was clearly pretty skeptical about the lower courts finding in this case. He seemed less likely. Kavanaugh's questions were a little bit harder
to read. I mean, some of it was again about the evidence, but some of it also seemed to be indicated he was thinking about what's the burden on the defendants in this case? Who are the appellants to show that the district court was clearly wrong. I think it was certainly a tough argument for the NAACP defending the lower court's finding. I think if they have any chance, it's going to be to the extent that the Court decides to rally around the idea that unless it's clearly erroneous,
there should be difference in lower court's finding. On the other hand, this is the court's first sort of race party intertwined case since Rucho four years ago, when the Court said that partisan gerrymandering is not on constitutional, it's notn justiciable. So it's the first time that they will speak to the how do you separate out race and party? And one could imagine they may want to shut down the idea that you could get around Rucho by reframing
things around race. Now, the Court in the past has said, even if there's a partisan factor, that the state can't use the race as approxy for party when it draws lines to favor a party. But one could imagine this is a case where the Court might want to address the how do you disentangle race and party in a world in which racial gerrymandering is unconstitutional but partisan jerrymandering is not.
Explain why this case is different from the case you referred to, you know, the Alabama case where it was surprising that the Chief and Justice Kavanaugh sided with the liberals there.
That case was really about whether or not the Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act. This one is whether or not South Carolina violated the Constitution. Although the result in Alabama will have a partisan consequence, there wasn't an argument that the state was doing it to help the Republicans. It wasn't really an argument about the intent of the
state at all that case. Under the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs can win if they show disparate impact, if they show that the state drew lines in a way that had the effect of minimizing minority voting power. I mean, the thing is, in South Carolina, the district that was changed, District one, was not going to be a majority minority district.
It was going to be a white majority district either way, although for the larger black share of the voting population it might have been a democratic district, probably a white democratic district. And that's sort of one of the differences here is that the core it is somewhat sensitive to state actions that dilute minority voting power, but they don't care about state actions that chap from one party over another.
And so the Alabama case was argued entirely around minority voting rights, although it turns out if you increase minority voting power in that state, you were likely to get at likely to have a partisan consequence. Here wasn't really a claim that minority votes were being diluted, just that voters are being moved around from one district to another.
This case is the third time in two years that the Court has heard arguments about state's congressional lines, and two other cases are advancing in the lower courts in Georgia and Louisiana that challenge maps under the Voting Rights Act. Is it that the Court's precedent is not clear or are these kinds of cases always challenged?
Well, I think anything evolving redistricting is going to be challenged. This case is different from the other ones. The other two cases, the one you mentioned, our Voting Rights Act challenges where the plaintiffs are arguing that the the way the lines are drawn reduces the ability of black voters to elect the candidates of their choice in districts, which might generate more minority representation Louisiana clearly, so in this one, again there wasn't a claim that you would have created
another black majority district. Interestingly, the court has tend to look at these things as to whether you know they're going to be a sort of a majority minority, or district where minority voters are likely to prevail at least have the opportunity prevail. They've been less sympathetic to arguments about, well, maybe minority voters must be more influential if they're a bigger share, but not nearly a majority, and so they
haven't bought that argument. And so the voting rights arguments are always difficult because the plaintiffs have to show that there could have been another minority district, that there is racially polarized voting, and that under the totality of the circumstances, the setup is unfaired minority voters. And that's a tough standard to meet. And many people thought that the court just didn't seem that interested. The Allen case kind of let me not revive that standard, but confirm that that
is still the standard. And so I think it's what's given to wind at the backs of the people bringing the challenges. Nonetheless, there's a slow slog through the court.
Thanks so much, rich that's Professor Richard Raffault of Columbia Law School. Coming up next, we'll discuss lawsuits from FGX investors. I'm June Grosso and this is Bloomberg.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosso from Bloomberg Radio.
You're listening to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.
I call it the Wheel. I don't think so.
What does it do?
Yeah? So does a bagel? Okay? A bangle? Here, Kenny. One of the worst ideas I've ever.
Heard, Like I was saying, it's FTX, it's a safe and easy way to get into crypto.
I don't think so.
And I'm never wrong about this stuff.
Never remember that Larry David commercial for FTX that had them laughing at the Super Bowl in twenty twenty two. And there was also Tom Brady touting FTX and commercials
Giselle Bunchen, Steph Curry, and Shaquille O'Neil, among others. Well, investors who claim they lost billions in the collapse of FTX are trying to pin the blame not just on Sam bankman freed in his inner circle, but also on the celebrities who were paid to endorse it, as well as bankers, accountants, and lawyers who propped up the crypto Exchange's legitimacy. Joining me is Braden Perry, a former federal regulatory enforcement attorney and a partner at Kenny Hurtz Perry.
So this is a class action lawsuit. Tell us about it.
Yeah, So this is a loss. It is brought by a number of individuals who where the investors or had some sort of financial interest in FTX, and they brought it against a number of various entities, including celebrity endorsers, accountants, the actual members of FTX itself, as well as others.
So it's a wide ranging case that essentially boils down to FTX was falsely providing information to the public, and the public somehow either invested or had some sort of financial interest in FTX and therefore were harmed.
So let's start with the celebrities, because that's where everyone starts, correct, And those advertisements by Larry David and Tom Brady, the commercials were played at the beginning of SBF's trial. So what does the law require of celebrity endorsers.
So generally the law requires not much, and what it requires is that the celebrity endorser knows what the product is and how it works. You that generally there's some sort of disclaimer, ordinarily at the bottom of the advertisement or elsewhere, it indicates celebrity endorser is a paid endorser for that product as well as the truthfulness and so the endorser cannot provide information that's false or misleading to the public.
So then does that mean that Jennifer Garner actually has to use the drugstore creams she claims she uses.
Generally that's the case, and so you'll see these advertisements with certain restaurants where celebrities are at or certain products that they're using, and it's not an exclusive use, and so it can be a very high level. So if Jenner Garner has used a product that's been provided to her, she can certainly endorse that product. And so it's not a lifelong or a over the top type of use requirement.
But generally, yeah, if a celebrity endorser is going to endorse a product, that celebrity endorser should be using that product.
So does that mean that Tom Brady and Larry David and all the others should have been invested in FTX.
Yeah, I don't know if they should have been invested in the FTX. Obviously they should have known what FTX is and what it does, and that would likely be their exchange of choice if they were going to be part of the crypto movement, not necessarily a needed part of that movement.
That's why I'm wondering, when sophisticated investors didn't know about FTX and the government found out much later, how are celebrities supposed to know?
And that's the big question that's going to be the legal question is what did the celebrities know? What influence did they have on these investments? And that's really the crux of the legal argument in this case. The class action is so wide with all the different entities associated
with FTX. You know, the accountant stand Backman Freed is one of the defendants, all these celebrity endorsers, everyone is involved, and so there's going to be from the defense side lots of finger pointing as to who knew what and when and where and how, and so that's really going to be what the plans to prove is whether or not these celebrity endorsers were intricate in this false and misleading product.
Some of the lawyers for the celebrities are saying that the investors have no valid claim against them because the advertisements and sponsorships they were involved and didn't specifically encourage anyone to deposit money in FTX accounts. That seems weird because that's what the ad is for, right. Also that they never pitched the accounts at issue in the SBF case. Do those sound like typical defenses?
They sound like typical defenses. Whether or not they will be successful is another story. The defense teams have several different lines of defense. As you mentioned, you know, they weren't specific to the actual accounts. They didn't provide terms or conditions of the accounts. They weren't detailing what the accounts could or could not do, and so that's general
of defense to the claims. However, they knew or should have known, that there was misleading information by not providing some of that information about these accounts, and that can be counterproductive to their case. Also, if I'm sitting on the defense table and I see that the main group, the head of FTX, has been convicted of crimes. I'm certainly pointing to that, saying, hey, these people were committing crimes, were victims just as much as you were.
Yeah, So the Sam bankman freed conviction and the guilty please of his inner circle should be helpful to the defendants here. Now, some of the other targets of the lawsuit are professional advisors, ranging from an accounting firm, investment firm, and a bank. Those seem like more reasonable defendants to me.
Yeah, and they should be. And ordinarily, when you find and you look at the past history of massive frauds and finance made off as the best picture of that, there is still ongoing litigation involving countants, professional individuals who had some part of his scheme. That's the case here. You know, obviously, the accountants, the investment firms, all of these pieces were part of the ongoing massive dollars that FTX was bringing in and maintaining during its lifetime. And
those are the traditional defendants you'd see celebrity endorsers. Frankly, you don't see that often, and I think that you know, obviously there have been a group that have settled just because likely they didn't want to be bothered with the litigation or part of the litigation, and there's a valid
reason to settle and get out. But I think the ones that are still in there have relatively valid defenses that one they were victims two and two that their endorsements had no input on what the actual underlying fraud of FTCH was about.
Last year, a federal judge dismissed a lawsuit from investors that accused Kim Kardashian, boxer Floyd Mayweather, and others of endorsing a cryptocurrency known as Ethereum Max. So I mean that could happen here, But is there a lot of pressure on the celebrities to settle.
So it's the big gamble on litigation in the end, as a gamble, you can spend a lot of money trying to defend yourself and either get dismissed through summary judgment, through motion to dismiss, through other type of non trial activity, and it's still at the end of the day going to cost you money. And so there's a lot of times and you know, when I'm I'm dealing with litigation and my clients, I talk to them about the financial
aspects of taking something to trial. You know what what will that cost number one, and what is the actual potential cost from it an adverse decision at trial? And a lot of times, you know, you find a middle ground with the other side from a litigation standpoint, where it makes more sense to settle and move on as opposed to trying to defend yourself months and months down the road. It takes an emotional toll, it takes a financial toll. Litigation is not fun and many times.
Speak lawyers not well.
Some of these lawyers, I think are probably having a good time with this, but it's certainly from a defendant or plaintiff standpoint, there's a lot that goes into it, and it's certainly you know, when when I have large cases that involved a long time of litigation, it's not easy on on either defendants or plaintiffs. It takes a lot of emotional toll from individuals when you're dealing with litigation day in and day out.
It certainly does not to mention the cost of litigation. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Lawn Show, I'll continue my conversation with former federal Regulatory Enforcement attorney Braden Perry. Will the case involving FTX more complicated to unwind than the made Off case was, and attorneys looking for legal research. Whether you're an in house council or in private practice, Bloomberg Law gives you the edge with the latest in
AI powered legal analytics, business insights, and workflow tools. With guidance from our experts, you'll grasp the latest trends in the legal industry, helping you achieve better results for the practice of law, the business of law, the future of law. Visit Bloomberg Law dot com.
This is Bloomberg Law with June Brusso from Bloomberg Radio.
You're listening to a special best of edition of the Bloomberg Law Show. I've been talking to Braden Perry, a former regulatory enforcement attorney, about the FTX investors lawsuits. As you mentioned, Bernie Madeoff, the investor suits played out for well over a decade, still some playing out. Do you think the SBF case is even more complicated to unwind than the maid Off?
Yeah?
I do. You know. We've been talking strictly about this. This one plane of case involves a number of celebrity endorsers. You have to remember that the criminal case is essentially over. There will be appeals. There will be other issues in this, although I don't think many of those peel issues. He was convicted. I think he'll be sentenced and I don't think any appeals will be successful. Then you got the
regulatory action, so you got the CFTC, you got the SEC. Ordinarily, within these parallel criminal cases, those cases likely will be settled because there's not much else to go after. The big issue is going to be bankruptcy receiverships in the different jurisdictions and trying to claw back as much of this lost money as possible to provide to investors. So that's going to be the main focus for the next decade is the sivership action to claw back all this
individual funds from all these various entities. And then you'll have these civil cases that are trying to find those that may not have exposure otherwise, so these celebrity endorsers, those types of things, and so it's going to be complicated. And the fact that that crypto wasn't regulated like Madoff's Ponzi scheme was, there's no central regulator, and you get the SEC, you got the CFTC that are part of this, But unlike Madeoff, where you could point directly at the SEC.
There's really no nexus of jurisdiction between anyone. So it's going to take a long time. You know FTX at offices all over the place, there's multiple jurisdictions. It will take a while to unwind what this is becoming. It could be could be longer than what Madoff's looked at.
And at the sentencing of Sam Bankman Freed, and the three people who flipped, will the judge order restitution The way it.
Generally works when it comes to parallel criminal slash regulatory slash liquidation proceedings is anything the government gets, and so as part of sentencing for Sam Bekund Free, for Carolyn Ellison, for Wang, for all of these individuals, there'll be a restitution element as their sins and that will go into
the bucket of the receiver. So you'll likely see any ill gotten gains these individuals received will be part of that restitution order under the sentencing, that will flow into the receivership action that will be part of that bucket to provide to investors. So yeah, they will likely have large restitution positions as part of their sensing.
Are there more of these class action lawsuits? Or has this one been certified as a class Do you know?
When it comes to all of these different actions, there's lots of priority, and the priority number one was the criminal case. And while criminal case is ongoing, generally all the civil cases are stayed due to a number of different evidentiary issues, issues with certain constitutional rights, those types of things. That's the case in the Florida action. At this point in time, there's been ongoing discovery about that
class action. There's not been a decision to certify the class action as of yet, but I do know that there's a number of different motions, a number of different procedural elements that have been put on hold while the criminal case was ongoing. Now the criminal case is over, I think all of these courts are going to get back in full gear to be addressing all of these issues now. I mean there's going to be a number
of evidentiary issues from the trial. The vast government investigation could be a treasure trove of information for the plaintiffs when it comes to these types of things, and so the courts are now going to have to face that issue and begin moving again procedurally on these cases. Obviously,
these are interesting times. That we live in when it comes to crypto and I think this is another indication that at some point there needs to be some sort of regulation too, sure that this doesn't happen again, but it's been interesting in the process. And think, you know, several years ago, looking at this, you wouldn't think that Sam bad mcfreed, who had provided money to politicians to businesses.
I mean, FTX had its name on every umpire's church in Major League Baseball, so you would have thought of this. And now we're here. So it's been an interesting time and I think it will be certainly interesting for the next few years and more in seeing how this.
All plays out along Road Ahead. Thanks so much, Braiden. That's Braiden Perry of Kenny Hurts Perry. And that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Stay with us. Today's top stories and global business headlines are coming up right now.